[BrewDog]

(04-25-2017 07:13 PM)Kurgan Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 09:36 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

I've been a converted libertarian for almost 20 years. You're the first one I've heard to ever make the comparison.

The question came from a post from the Libertarian Party post about someone calling the party being based on autism.

So one guy on RVF that dislikes the libertarian philosophy called us retards, and now that equals this:

Quote:

From all the political posts I see about libertarians and the philospohy, people seem to equate it with autism.

[Kurgan]

(04-25-2017 07:17 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 07:13 PM)Kurgan Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 09:36 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

I've been a converted libertarian for almost 20 years. You're the first one I've heard to ever make the comparison.

The question came from a post from the Libertarian Party post about someone calling the party being based on autism.

So one guy on RVF that dislikes the libertarian philosophy called us retards, and now that equals this:

Quote:

From all the political posts I see about libertarians and the philospohy, people seem to equate it with autism.

I don't hate libertarianism to be honest, but I also haven't had pleasant experiences with them.

It was just one post and I was just curious as to why they said it, I wasn't trying to paint them all in one brush.

[MMX2010]

(04-25-2017 07:13 PM)Kurgan Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 09:36 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 07:11 PM)Kurgan Wrote:  

I didn't think I asked correctly, but thanks all for the positive and negative responses. It should be why do people think libertarians are autistic.

I've been a converted libertarian for almost 20 years. You're the first one I've heard to ever make the comparison.

The question came from a post from the Libertarian Party post about someone calling the party being based on autism.

I don't remember whether that was me, but it could've been, since I agree with the premise. Jean Valjean's excellent post about being unable to understand unwritten social norms forms about 80% of my thinking.

The other 20% is a combination of the following:

(1) At least 80% of libertarians are male, creating a minimum 4:1 male-to-female gender ratio. Similarly, one in 52 boys are autistic, while only one in 252 girls are autistic: a 5:1 gender ratio.

(2) Autists are exceptionally devoted to ideas, at the expense of social skills - but also at the expense of physical and aesthetic skills. Autists don't dress well, can't dance, don't play musical instruments, can't tell good jokes, have poor hygiene, and aren't physically strong. Libertarians are also all of these.

(3) Libertarians have long-winded theories about human nature, while also having zero interest in either evolutionary biology, or any form of experimental psychology.

(4) Libertarians are verbose as fuck over esoteric details.

(5) Libertarians are easily trolled with three simple arguments.

The first is that the natural state of humanity is towards statism, not libertarianism.

The second is that the inability of libertarians to name modern day libertarian societies is evidence that libertarianism doesn't work.

The third is that the only true way to be a libertarian is to move to Liberland.

[Swoldier]

I'm not even libertarian and I can tell that most of the arguments (some of them aren't even arguments, just straw-men and ad hominems) being raised against libertarianism here are by people who think they understand it, but actually don't. I can tell MMX2010, for example, has never read a book by Murray Rothbard or any other respected libertarian scholar (If you're willing to do some homework, which I doubt you are, "The Problem of Political Authority" by Michael Huemer is a good start.) because if he had, he'd known his "arguments" against libertarianism are the most common objections raised against it and any would-be libertarian would have an answer for them.

[MMX2010]

"Having an answer for something" isn't the same thing as "Having an answer for something, based on years of reading scientific information about the human mind and human nature".

I've no doubt that Murray Rothbard offers the first, but not the second.

Rather than getting into that, though, can you please name at least five modern societies which are firmly founded on Murray Rothbard's ideas, and tell me your experiences of living in any of them?

Bonus content would be if you've lived in more than one of these places, and can compare them.

[Leonard D Neubache]

It doesn't bode well for libertarians that most of the small scale libertarian communes set up by Constitutionalist militiamen over the last twenty years degenerated quickly into dick measuring contests among Gamma narcissists.

Even similarly scaled communist communes have had a better track record.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Those threads keep on coming up again and again, because they are spun as true solutions to the status quo just like the Antifa supporters claim that they will manage to work communism really well this time around.

Here a few excellent links:

https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/201...economics/

https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/201...economics/

https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/cat...economics/

That said - I don't decry Libertarians. Some of them are exceedingly smart. Myself I started out as a laissez-faire economists coming out from the usual economic educational gulags. Then only much later when I became aware of a few things I sort of considered the Libertarian solution as proposed by the likes of Ron Paul as a viable path. But as I researched more and especially the bloody history for the fight for living wages, the alternatives of usury-free monetary systems - well then I quickly abandoned the Libertarian train.

But of course I understand why smart and especially fiercely independent men are attracted to it.

However let me say this clearly - Libertarianism is the absolute opposite of Communism. Communism fails because it assumes that man will become utterly self-less doing everything for the common good. Libertarians in contrast assume that out of ruthless and complete selfishness a benevolent unseen hand of the market emerges that fondles your balls until eternity.

Neither of those assumptions are viewing human behavioral patterns correctly. We are at the same time selfish creatures and we can be cooperative ones. The best systems always take both sides into consideration. The working class has to unite to force someone to give them good living wages, but all without stifling free enterprise and profit motive too much, or there is zero incentive to excel. In addition you are also left with a predatory usury monetary system that remains intact in a Libertarian economic model.

The reason why many associate autism with Libertarianism now is because after a time only smart autists try their best to adhere to a dying ideology that is being dismantled logically by the true alternative reformers.

And neither Libertarianism nor Communism will ever successfully rule forever, though Libertarian models took a good turn for a while at times during the 17th and 18th century, where 20% of London women had to prostitute themselves and men worked for breadcrumbs in 100 hour work-weeks. Both models are severely lacking on some fronts.

We humans require a combination of selfish elements with cooperative ones.

[MMX2010]

(04-26-2017 08:48 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

It doesn't bode well for libertarians that most of the small scale libertarian communes set up by Constitutionalist militiamen over the last twenty years degenerated quickly into dick measuring contests among Gamma narcissists.

Even similarly scaled communist communes have had a better track record.

It also doesn't bode well that if these libertarian communities in America were militarily attacked by a foreign power, then the United States would be morally obliged to defend these communities. Living under the military protection of a statist society means you've living in a statist society, no matter how many other libertarian principles your society embodies.

[Leonard D Neubache]

What I don't get is why so many libertarians can't simply agree with constitutionalists or minarchists or small-g government republicans to wind back the government for a few decades and then quibble over the details when their paths finally diverge.

But no. It always seems to be "MY WAY OR GTFO, COMMUNIST!!!1!!1!"

[Leonard D Neubache]

(04-26-2017 09:42 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 08:48 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

It doesn't bode well for libertarians that most of the small scale libertarian communes set up by Constitutionalist militiamen over the last twenty years degenerated quickly into dick measuring contests among Gamma narcissists.

Even similarly scaled communist communes have had a better track record.

It also doesn't bode well that if these libertarian communities in America were militarily attacked by a foreign power, then the United States would be morally obliged to defend these communities. Living under the military protection of a statist society means you've living in a statist society, no matter how many other libertarian principles your society embodies.

Well in fairness they weren't given an option to secede, but even with their limited responsibilities they still couldn't best their innate desires to control each other by one means or another.

And another thing. I really wish libertarians would stop citing the period of the American War Of Independence through to the Civil War or even World War 1 as some sort of golden age of industrial advancement on the back of libertarian principles.

The fact is that a whole new continent, relatively unpopulated, was opened up with little to no oversight and was plundered in an extraordinarily short time. "No oversight" shouts the Libertarian. But the fact is that where government was absent there was often the heavy hand of the cattle baron or the mining magnate or similar running entire districts out of their pockets with an iron fist, having bought what semblance of law existed to be bought and typically using hired muscle to squash what pitiful resistance was on offer.

Most pioneers wouldn't have had the faintest notion about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and the application of it would have been a laughable concept to anyone who wanted to talk shit about the local rail tycoon much less carry a gun in public in defiance of the bought-and-paid-for sheriff of the region.

But libertarians just looooooove to gloss over all the dirty details of that era and adopt the underpants gnome version of the story.

1) Near non-existent government.
2) ???
3) Profit!

[Cyr]

(04-25-2017 10:20 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 07:13 PM)Kurgan Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 09:36 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 07:11 PM)Kurgan Wrote:  

I didn't think I asked correctly, but thanks all for the positive and negative responses. It should be why do people think libertarians are autistic.

I've been a converted libertarian for almost 20 years. You're the first one I've heard to ever make the comparison.

The question came from a post from the Libertarian Party post about someone calling the party being based on autism.

I don't remember whether that was me, but it could've been, since I agree with the premise. Jean Valjean's excellent post about being unable to understand unwritten social norms forms about 80% of my thinking.

The other 20% is a combination of the following:

(1) At least 80% of libertarians are male, creating a minimum 4:1 male-to-female gender ratio. Similarly, one in 52 boys are autistic, while only one in 252 girls are autistic: a 5:1 gender ratio.

(2) Autists are exceptionally devoted to ideas, at the expense of social skills - but also at the expense of physical and aesthetic skills. Autists don't dress well, can't dance, don't play musical instruments, can't tell good jokes, have poor hygiene, and aren't physically strong. Libertarians are also all of these.

(3) Libertarians have long-winded theories about human nature, while also having zero interest in either evolutionary biology, or any form of experimental psychology.

(4) Libertarians are verbose as fuck over esoteric details.

(5) Libertarians are easily trolled with three simple arguments.

The first is that the natural state of humanity is towards statism, not libertarianism.

The second is that the inability of libertarians to name modern day libertarian societies is evidence that libertarianism doesn't work.

The third is that the only true way to be a libertarian is to move to Liberland.

I agree with most of what you're saying about libertarianism, but there's no need to resort to so many ad hominems against fellow forum members. At the end of the day, we're all friends and out for broadly the same things. It doesn't make sense to discuss politics so forcefully and aggressively in this setting.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-26-2017 10:42 AM)Cyr Wrote:  

I agree with most of what you're saying about libertarianism, but there's no need to resort to so many ad hominems against fellow forum members. At the end of the day, we're all friends and out for broadly the same things. It doesn't make sense to discuss politics so forcefully and aggressively in this setting.

That is absolutely correct. Men I deeply respect would call themselves Libertarians. Some of those men are of the Alpha/Sigma kind and extremely intelligent.

In my opinion they simply have not thought things through or haven't looked at the issue as much as I have.

And it is not as if this is such an important issue anyway, because neither of us are going to get our desired economic system.

[MMX2010]

Cyr Wrote:

I agree with most of what you're saying about libertarianism, but there's no need to resort to so many ad hominems against fellow forum members.

Okay, Mr. Non-Mod. You should cut-and-paste which parts of my posts are "ad hominem" AND tell me which forum members I've specifically targeted with those ad hominems.

[BrewDog]

(04-26-2017 09:46 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

What I don't get is why so many libertarians can't simply agree with constitutionalists or minarchists or small-g government republicans to wind back the government for a few decades and then quibble over the details when their paths finally diverge.

But no. It always seems to be "MY WAY OR GTFO, COMMUNIST!!!1!!1!"

I used to be a small government republican. Again, I intentionally use a little "r" because I was never a member of the Republican Party, as now I consider myself a libertarian with a small "l". I don't agree with the Libertarian Party on various subjects, most notably open borders.

But I made the swap after finally concluding that the small government Republicans weren't, aren't, and never will actually be for smaller, less intrusive, less wasteful government unless you count the Pauls, Ron and Rand. The rest of the R's talk incessantly of smaller government, yet their voting records rarely match their promises.

So I switched over to libertarianism and never looked back.

If it makes any of you feel better, the Democrats usually despise libertarians even more so than Republicans. They think we're a version of super far right-wing zealots. And fiscally, we are. Most of us would never take away children's free lunch programs (not even Ron Paul), but we don't see the need for a massive bloated federal Education Department bureaucracy that serves no purpose other than to provide a black hole for taxpayer money.

But many republicans think we're either far left of Democrats or just plain anarchists, and those aren't accurate descriptions, either. On the social side of things, we just want to be left alone. We don't want a nanny to tell us how many ounces of soda we can drink or prevent us from playing Partypoker.com for nickle bets.

We can have a strong military, fire protection, police, jails, courts, roads, airports, etc. without spending trillions on mere federal bureaucratic waste. And the government can leave us to our own sins without the threat of smashing in our doors and throwing us in a cage because we ingested something deemed unhealthy.

[Suits]

(04-26-2017 06:40 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

We don't want a nanny to tell us how many ounces of soda we can drink or prevent us from playing Partypoker.com for nickle bets.

We can have a strong military, fire protection, police, jails, courts, roads, airports, etc. without spending trillions on mere federal bureaucratic waste. And the government can leave us to our own sins without the threat of smashing in our doors and throwing us in a cage because we ingested something deemed unhealthy.

I don't think that you need to be a libertarian or have any sort of label to believe these things.

Commonsense and a brain is probably all it should take.

[puckerman]

(04-25-2017 10:20 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

The first is that the natural state of humanity is towards statism, not libertarianism.

That applies to a large portion of humanity, but not all of it.

Quote:

The second is that the inability of libertarians to name modern day libertarian societies is evidence that libertarianism doesn't work.

That means absolutely nothing. The people who control the wealth and power don't want it. They don't care about anyone else but themselves.

[puckerman]

(04-26-2017 08:48 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

It doesn't bode well for libertarians that most of the small scale libertarian communes set up by Constitutionalist militiamen over the last twenty years degenerated quickly into dick measuring contests among Gamma narcissists.

Even similarly scaled communist communes have had a better track record.

Where are these libertarian communes? Many of these Constitutionalist militiamen are not libertarians. Can you give names?

[Leonard D Neubache]

(04-26-2017 11:35 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 08:48 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

It doesn't bode well for libertarians that most of the small scale libertarian communes set up by Constitutionalist militiamen over the last twenty years degenerated quickly into dick measuring contests among Gamma narcissists.

Even similarly scaled communist communes have had a better track record.

Where are these libertarian communes? Many of these Constitutionalist militiamen are not libertarians. Can you give names?

I've followed their progress loosely over the last 10 years but for obvious reasons they don't exactly livestream their day-to-day itinerary. In any case I'm not about to go and dredge up details of groups for the sake of convincing someone who claims that "Constitutionalist militiamen are not libertarians".

First give me an iron clad definition of what constitutes libertarianism including your apparent denunciation of constitutionalism and then run it by three libertarians without getting into a cat-fight.

If you can manage that then I'll do the digging on the communes.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

A lot of Libertarians have not looked into Austrian Economics and what it entails. They probably just assume that it means very limited government, very little taxes, free enterprise and free determination of close to anything possible. The reality is of course as much removed from the facts as the utopia of egalitarian Communism deviated from the reality.

[LEMONed IScream]

https://lewrockwell.com/2017/04/hans-her...tarianism/

Quote:

You see a causal link between a society’s form of government and its moral values and social development. Do you see a similar link between type of government and aesthetic standards and quality of art and entertainment?

Hoppe: Yes I do. Democratic state government systematically promotes egalitarianism and relativism. In the field of human interaction, it leads to the subversion and ultimately disappearance of the idea of eternal and universal principles of justice. Law is swamped and submerged by legislation. In the field of the arts and of aesthetic judgment, democracy leads to the subversion and ultimately disappearance of the notion of beauty and universal standards of beauty. Beauty is swamped and submerged by so-called “modern art.”

Given that libertarian communities could freely banish dissenters for disagreeing with any given opinion, would there be more or less free intellectual discussion in a libertarian world as opposed to ours? And as opposed to a world composed of traditional monarchies?

Hoppe: Private property entitles its owner to discriminate: to exclude or include others from his property and to determine the conditions of entry and inclusion. Both inclusion and exclusion have associated costs and benefits for the owner, which he weighs against each other when he makes his decision. In any case, the owner’s decision is motivated by his concern for his property and by reason. His reasoning may turn out correct and he reaches his goal or it may turn out wrong, but in any case, the owner’s is a reasoned decision.

The founder and developer of a private community, then, would not likely discriminate and exclude based on mere differences of opinion. Or if he did he would not likely attract more than a guru’s following as subscribers. Typically, discrimination will be based on differences in conduct, expression and appearance, on what people do and how they act in public, on language, religion, ethnicity, customs, social class, etc. The owner discriminates in order to achieve a high degree of homogeneity-of-conduct in his community and so avoid or reduce intra-communal tension and conflict — in economic jargon: to reduce transaction costs; and he does so in the expectation that his decision will be good for his property and community.

In any case, in a libertarian world there would indeed be far more discrimination than in the present statist world, which is characterized by countless anti-discrimination laws and, consequently, ubiquitous forced integration. In particular, whatever other criteria may be used for inclusion or exclusion, in a libertarian world, for instance, no private community owner would want to tolerate — and not discriminate against — communist or socialist activists on his property. As enemies of the very institution on which the community rests, they would be excluded or expelled — but they would of course remain free to establish their own communist commune, kibbutzim, or whatever other “lifestyle experiment” they come up with.

In sum and to finally answer your question, then, a libertarian world would be characterized by a far greater variety of different, but internally relatively homogeneous communities, and consequently the range, diversity, and vigor of intellectual discussion in all likelihood would far surpass anything experienced presently or at any time in the past.

Alternatively, does art have a role to play in shaping political and philosophical ideas? Can this be done other than as propaganda for a given ideology?

Hoppe: The purpose of the visual arts and of music is the creation of beauty in all its manifestations. It has no further philosophical implications. Yet beautiful art and music and libertarianism have one important commonality. Libertarianism, too, is beautiful. Not aesthetically, of course, but logically, as a simple and elegant social theory.

As for the wholly or partially discursive — narrative — arts, yes, they can serve as a vehicle for the promotion of political and philosophical ideas. You can call this propaganda. But these ideas can be true and good or false and evil. And although I am not an artsy person, I rather have more artists propagandizing the true and good ideas of private property and of capitalism as Ayn Rand, for instance, and fewer artists propagandizing the false and evil ideas of public property and of socialism as, let’s say, Bertolt Brecht. But a philosophical agenda is neither necessary to make for art — one can also tell a story for its own sake. Nor is a philosophical purpose sufficient to make for art. To make for art, a narrative must above all be characterized by truthfulness (in the widest sense of the term), by intelligibility, logical coherence, a mastery of language, expression and style, and a sense of humanity and of human justice: of agency and the intentional and the non-intentional in life, of right and wrong, and good and bad.

What positive influence did Habermas have on your thought? Were there negative influences from him as well?

Hoppe: Habermas was my principal philosophy teacher and Ph.D. advisor during my studies at the Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, from 1968-74. Through his seminars I became acquainted with British and American analytical philosophy. I read K. Popper, P. Feyerabend, L. Wittgenstein, G. Ryle, J.L. Austin, J. Searle, W.v.O. Quine, H. Putnam, N. Chomsky, J. Piaget. I discovered Paul Lorenzen and the Erlangen School and the work of K.O Apel. I still believe that this was a pretty good intellectual training.

Personally, then, I have no regrets. As for Habermas’s influence on Germany and German public opinion, however, it has been an unmitigated disaster, at least from a libertarian viewpoint. Habermas is today Germany’s most celebrated public intellectual and High Priest of “Political Correctness”: of social democracy and welfare-statism, of multi-culturalism, anti-discrimination (affirmative action) and political centralization spiced, especially for German consumption, with a heavy dose of “anti-fascist” rhetoric and “collective guilt” — mongering.

Read Hoppe guys. Read Hoppe!

[MMX2010]

(04-26-2017 11:33 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 10:20 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

The first is that the natural state of humanity is towards statism, not libertarianism.

That applies to a large portion of humanity, but not all of it.

That doesn't matter.

One of the most important discoveries made by evolutionary biologists / neuroscientists is called The Rule of 150, which simply means that the maximum number of people an individual human being can reliably be acquainted with is 150.

In prehistory, this meant that villages tended to fall apart due to internal strife right around the moment their populations reached 150.

In modern times, this means that if you're living in an area (whether neighborhood, village, town, state, or nation) containing more than 150 people, you're being bound together by a mysterious force that transcends the limitations of the human brain.

Nature, according to evolutionary biologists, tends towards efficiency. And we can use this rule (and a sense of history) to postulate what that binding force is.

The cheapest binding force is GENETICS. Simply, a population of 300 people is likely to remain bonded if all of its members are closely genetically related.

The next-cheapest binding force is RELIGION. The books "On Killing by Dave Grossman" and "The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt" are two of the easiest books that explore this subject.

In the first book, the military accidently discovered that synchronized, arduous physical movement produces an intense feeling of group loyalty. (When a soldier describes being taken apart and being put back together into a stronger, team-player, he's describing the natural biological reaction to extended hours of military drilling.)

In the second book, Jonathan Haidt accidentally discovered the importance and 100%-presence in all primitive societies of ritual chanting and dancing. He was lucky enough to have read Grossman's book before he saw the primitive dances, so he correctly speculated that those dances performed the same function as military drilling. From there, he speculated that morality IS NOT a series of agreed-upon rules, but rather a sense of bonded, common feeling - without which no rules can be created. (Or, if they can be created, there's too much incentive to break them, since breaking them only hurts people to whom you're NOT BONDED.)

The next-cheapest bonding force is government and nation, most of which have strong religious components anyway. Religion is a much more powerful bonding force, given that practically all societies are religious in some manner. Atheists, whom Vox Day repeatedly decries as Lacking In Empathy, only want to discuss Religion-As-Theology (usually in point-and-laugh mode). But they don't want to discuss Religion-As-Evolutionary-Force, (likely because this viewpoint treats religion in a more favorable light and challenges Atheists to develop a more rigorous criticism of religion than "talking snake".

Atheists are also prone to suggest that a religion-free government is better than a theocracy. But right now, that's not scientifically established, and the way France and especially Sweden are being run over by Muslims, Muslims, God dammit, is a big piece of evidence against the Atheists.

-----

Anyway, I said it doesn't fucking matter that "Less than 100% of humans are naturally inclined towards statism." What I meant was that if you're living in an area containing more than 150 people, you prefer that nature-conquering binding force.

But which binding force do you prefer? GENETICS can be ruled out because not nearly everyone in your area is closely related. RELIGION can be ruled out, because not nearly everyone goes to the same church. So the only thing left is GOVERNMENT.

[MMX2010]

Hoppe writes well and isn't stupid. But he reminds me that I can easily imagine a world in which every year, for no apparent reason, 3% of women ranked 5+ will instantly morph into rank-2's, and 3% of women ranked 4- will instantly morph into rank-9's.

I could write stories about what this world is like, paying great attention to detail, and making bold predictions as to why that world is better than this one.

The only thing I can't do is speak with certainty, because no such world has ever existed.

Hoppe speaks with certainty.

[Kratomite]

I think the biggest problems I have with libertarians is they're always free-market this, free market that....and most of them are broke college kids saddled in $50K in GOVERNMENT-subsidized student loan debt.

(Not hating. I use to be one of them.)

Libertarianism is also awfully quiet on borders, culture, and race. These 3 things play an undeniable role in the success of a nation-state. Of course, they don't really believe in nation states. So it's no wonder they ignore that.

[dain_bramage]

I think I'll wade in here. Speaking of Autists.. Aren't a fair amount of them part of the phenomenon called, " Weaponized Autism"? Those guys on /pol/ pissing off Shia seem more bent towards fascism or national socialism than libertarian.

I am not afraid to say that I have a touch of the 'tism. I have a learning disability called NVLD with many characteristics associated with Asperger. I've been awkward my entire life and the Bang book has been useful and this site for working on social skills. I am very rigid in some manners, passionate about politics, playing guitar left and right handed, reading historical books and text books. I have been leaning towards outright fascism and nationalism on and off for the better part of half my life. I have had two autist friends IRL. One was a huge feminist, the other is quite hard right. We don't all fit into one catagory. Though I do understand that autists are a source of comedy as many are insanely odd and out of place.

Don't you guys think that some of the SJW and Antifa crowd act like Autistic children? Spazzing out, getting violent, autistic screeching? There are all sorts of autists. Gotta find the autists on our side. Work with the autism, use the autism.

[Kratomite]

^It's interesting you mention the autists on /pol. They used to be libertarian.

The libertarian movement essentially got cannibalized by the alt-right. There's a legion of ex-libertarians that now lean more nationalist. I think that's just the natural progression when you set aside the books, and experience real life.

It's also interesting to note that libertarianism was also almost a 100% white ideology. The ideals of personal responsibility, reducing welfare,etc..didn't sit well with anybody else.

The most retarded aspect of libertarianism is the "non-aggression axiom". Anybody who understands human nature knows we are aggressive, violent beasts. Peaceful societies without any backbone don't last long.